Aoki et al v. Gilbert et al

Filing 268

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/6/17 ORDERING Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to shorten time 264 is DENIED; Defendants' motion to compel 251 is DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment [250 ] is DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' motion to compel 252 is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and responses, by 10/9/17 at 5:00 pm; Defendants shall produce all revised responses that were promised, by 10/11/17 at 5:00 pm; Plaintiffs shall provide all responses to defendants' special interrogatories, without formalistic objections, by 10/13/17 at 5:00 pm; Plaintiffs shall produce all responsive documents, by 10/16/17 at 5:00 pm; DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES: due by 12/4/17; Defendants have until 10/12/17 at 5:00 pm to respond to the motions for sanctions contained within plaintiffs' recent pleadings. Plaintiffs will then have until 10/16/17 at 5:00 pm to reply.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS T. AOKI, et al., 12 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-2797 TLN CKD Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GREGORY FORD GILBERT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs filed this patent infringement case on October 24, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) After a 18 lengthy and contentious process, discovery is set to end on October 30, 2017 and trial is set for 19 February 26, 2018. (ECF Nos. 223, 243.) Presently pending before the court are four separate 20 motions. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 250), defendants’ motion to compel 21 plaintiffs to abide by discovery agreement (ECF No. 251), and plaintiffs’ motion to compel 22 defendant’s responses to written discovery and production of documents (ECF No. 252) came on 23 regularly for hearing on September 27, 2017. Duyen Nguyen appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. 24 Gregory Gilbert, Laurie Zmerzel, and Robert Kent (telephonically) appeared on behalf of 25 defendants. Ms. Ngueyn and Ms. Zmerzel were ordered to meet and confer, and to report back to 26 the court. 27 Thereafter, each party briefed the court on the state of their meet and confer efforts. (ECF 28 Nos. 262, 263.) Subsequently, plaintiffs then filed an ex parte motion to shorten time for hearing 1 1 (ECF No. 264), the fourth motion pending. On October 6, 2017 at 1:00 pm, the undersigned held 2 an informal telephonic conference with all attorneys who appeared at the prior hearing. Upon 3 review of the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, and good cause appearing therefor, THE 4 COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 5 Both parties are responsible for the numerous breakdowns in communication and 6 cooperation that have created the current impasse; multiple discovery requests remain 7 unanswered and/or unfulfilled as the discovery deadline approaches. The court is confident, 8 however, that parties are capable of following the court’s orders and being ready for trial on the 9 scheduled date. 10 To that effect, the court has issued a protective order (ECF No. 266) to assuage Mr. 11 Gilbert’s concerns regarding his production of discovery that the court previously ordered him to 12 produce on May 25, 2017 (ECF No. 235). Additionally, the court has reviewed each remaining 13 issue with the parties and crafted the discovery plan detailed below. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, ECF No. 250 14 A. 15 Plaintiffs assert that the court ought to render default judgement against defendants 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), because defendants failed to timely respond 17 to the court’s May 25, 2017 order to produce discovery. (See ECF No. 250.) However, as the 18 undersigned explained during the September 27, 2017 hearing, such a sanction is draconian and 19 unwarranted at the present juncture. As such, the motion for default judgement is denied. 20 However, Mr. Gilbert’s conduct was unacceptable. The court ordered Mr. Gilbert to 21 provide all discovery in question by June 5, 2017. (ECF No. 235.) While he provided partial 22 responses before that deadline, Mr. Gilbert neither provided complete responses nor petitioned 23 the court for an extension (which Mr. Gilbert claimed was necessitated by the need for a 24 protective order before he could comply with the court’s order). Thus June 5, 2017, came and 25 went without defendants producing the discovery they had been ordered by the court to provide.1 26 27 28 1 Troublingly, these particular discovery requests were served on Mr. Gilbert on September 15, 2016. (ECF No. 250-1 at 3.) Mr. Gilbert did not mention a protective order to plaintiffs or the court until after the courts’ May 25, 2017 order. (See ECF Nos. 238, 250-1.) 2 1 B. 2 Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to abide by discovery agreement, ECF No. 251 3 Defendants have moved to enforce an alleged stipulated protective order, and to have the 4 court order plaintiffs to appear for depositions at the end of October. (See ECF No. 251.) 5 Because the court has issued a protective order (ECF No. 266), and the parties have agreed on 6 dates for the depositions in question (see ECF Nos. 262, 263), this motion is moot. 7 C. 8 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ responses to written discovery and production of documents, ECF No. 252 9 Plaintiffs allege that defendants have failed to respond to a series of discovery requests 10 made in June of 2017. (See ECF No. 252.) Mr. Gilbert erroneously maintained that he had been 11 given a thirty day extension to respond to these requests.2 (See ECF No. 256.) At the informal 12 hearing, the parties reported that defendants have yet to provide complete responses to these 13 requests. 14 D. Extension of Discovery 15 Plaintiffs have proposed that discovery be extended and/or that the time for filing 16 discovery motions be shortened. (See ECF No. 264.) This matter originated in 2011, and 17 discovery has been ongoing for over a year. The court will not extend discovery any further. 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 19 1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to shorten time for hearing (ECF No. 264) is DENIED. 20 2. Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to abide by discovery agreement (ECF No. 21 251) is DENIED as moot. 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 250) is DENIED IN PART. As 22 23 explained below, the court will consider what alternative sanctions, short of default, 24 may be appropriate against defendants. 25 2 26 27 28 At the hearing, it became clear that, in his opposition brief, Mr. Gilbert had inappropriately cited to an email as the basis for this thirty day extension, omitting the second page of that email, which demonstrated that the extension did not cover the requests at issue. It is unclear if Mr. Gilbert’s representation to the court was inadvertently erroneous or purposely deceptive. In either case it is troubling. 3 4. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ responses to written discovery and 1 2 production of documents (ECF No. 252) is GRANTED. For the discovery requests 3 covered by this motion to compel: 4 a. Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and responses, by 5 October 9, 2017 at 5:00 pm. 6 b. Defendants shall produce all revised responses that were promised, by 7 October 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm. 5. Regarding defendants’ outstanding discovery requests: 8 a. Plaintiffs shall provide all responses to defendants’ special interrogatories, 9 10 without formalistic objections, by October 13, 2017 at 5:00 pm. 11 b. Plaintiffs shall produce all responsive documents, by October 16, 2017 at 5:00 12 pm. 13 6. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES: All counsel are to designate in writing, 14 file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of 15 expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than December 4, 16 2017.3 The designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed 17 by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 18 7. SANCTIONS: The court will determine what sanctions are appropriate for 19 defendants’ failure to comply with the court’s May 25, 2017 order (ECF No. 235), and 20 as a result of plaintiffs’ September 11, 2017 motion to compel (ECF No. 252). 21 a. Defendants have until October 12, 2017 at 5:00 pm to respond to the motions 22 for sanctions contained within plaintiffs’ recent pleadings. (See ECF Nos. 250, 23 252.) 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 3 27 The discovery of experts will include whether any motions based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999) are anticipated. 28 4 1 b. Plaintiffs will then have until October 16, 2017 at 5:00 pm to reply. 2 c. The matter shall thereafter stand submitted. 3 4 5 Dated: October 6, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?